It
is all too common that science is perceived as Memorizing Facts. Actually, science is an ongoing
endeavor to find out new things about how the world works. There is a great difference between
finding out new things, and memorizing old things. How did it get this way, what can we do about it, and why
does it matter?

To
find out something new, we must first determine what is already known. Although there is personal intellectual merit in re-discovering things that
others have previously discovered, such re-discovery does not advance overall
scientific understanding. Perhaps,
for this reason, we have tended toward presenting the already-known in science
classes. The logic is that this
seems to be the best way to bring students up-to-speed on what is known, so
that they are well prepared to advance into new areas when they are independent
researchers.

Although
there is merit in this logic, there are two disadvantages. First, it omits the fun part from student training. To a scientist, getting the data and thinking about it to
make sense of the findings is what science is all about. It's fun. Learning what others have already discovered is seen as a
necessary preliminary step, but to a practicing researcher, is not terribly
exciting.

The
second disadvantage to teaching science as "facts to learn" is that
it encourages students adopt a thinking style that is quite different from the
thinking style that is used in "doing science." For students to understand what science
really is, they must practice the thought processes that scientists use. Certainly, learning what is already
known is a part of it, but the fundamental investigative processes make up most of active science.

It
is necessary, therefore, to incorporate scientific, investigative thinking into
our classes. There are a variety
of ways to do this. The most
common term used to describe teaching that involves student investigation and
scientific thinking is "inquiry." However, this term is rather broadly defined. Furthermore, as described by Harwood
(2004), scientific inquiry does not follow any single, linear path that can be
simply described (for example, using terms such as "the scientific
method"). Different fields
use different methods.

Although
a full scientific inquiry involves defining the problem to be investigated and
developing methods by which to probe that problem, I will argue that the most
important aspects of a scientific approach--in terms of understanding the
nature of science--are:

- obtaining data

- evaluating the data

- working from the data to propose an explanation for what
happened to produce the data

- evaluating information from outside of
the immediate study to be certain that the proposed explanation is not ruled
out by other data

Proof

To
what extent can we say that our interpretation of the data is true? How certain are we that no new data
will ever be found that alters our
interpretation? As a general rule,
we cannot be certain. Therefore,
in the strict sense, our interpretations of data are not Facts. They are simply the best interpretation
that we have for the data that are currently available. It is generally not possible to "prove"
a theory. All of the data we have
support it, but maybe in the future, some new piece of data will be found that
disproves it.

Therefore,
if we teach science with the goal of providing our students with
previously-discovered information, and test them on what they have memorized,
we give them the impression that science is facts, and that those facts are supported by proofs. This is not what science is. Science provides merely the best interpretation of the
available data. Since we don't
know the answer beforehand, we can never be
certain that any explanation is
ever The Right Answer. The best
answer is the one that has survived the most tests. This is the nature of science.

Evolution and the Nature of Science

The
nature of science is especially important to understand when dealing with
evolution. Students who assume
that our teaching is a Listing of Facts assume that we are presenting evolution
as a Fact. Some of these students
look at the evidence available to them in the textbooks and in the classroom,
and they see things they don't fully understand, and things that "common
sense" tells them just don't seem likely. They come away with the idea that we claim to present facts, but the facts have not been
proven, so evolution must be pure speculation.

When
we understand the nature of science, and recognize that every theory in science
is no more than the current best interpretation of the currently-available
evidence, then some of the problem goes away. I say "some" because, although we may eliminate
the concern that we are teaching "facts" where our students don't see
proof, we make the teaching of evolution more complex (more accurate, but also more complex).

It
is necessary to give our students data, and involve them in developing
hypotheses to explain the data. In
doing so, they may develop excellent explanations that fit current thinking in
the field. It is interesting to
ask them, "do you believe that what you just thought up is a
Fact?" From their own
uncertainty, they will begin to understand the nature of scientific
theory. The theory is a good
explanation, but it is still just an explanation.

It
is also necessary to give our students time to explore alternative
explanations. When we give them
data, and they work to understand and explain the data, some groups may develop
different explanations from other groups. They will ask, "which one is the right answer?" The correct reply is that we don't yet
know, so we'll have to explore them. We need to develop criteria by which we can determine which explanations
are better, and which fall short. Perhaps, the least traumatic way to do so is simply to bring in
additional information from outside of the immediate study, and evaluate how
consistent each hypothesis is with the new information. "Why don't you consider this...now
get back in your groups, and think about your hypothesis again. Is your explanation still OK, or do you
need to re-think it?"

After
several rounds of interpreting data and developing--and changing--their
explanations, students will come to understand that the data may be fact, but
the interpretations are subject to change as new data come to light. Evolution is not dogma or Received
Wisdom, but is an explanation of data. After several rounds of interpreting data and developing explanations,
students will also know a fair amount about the nature of the data upon which
evolutionary theory is based.

Students
may offer other explanations of the origin of species during these
data-interpretation sessions. They
may have some pre-conceived,
non-scientific notions on this issue. That's fine. Students should
be free to interpret their data any way that they can justify. It is important to note that many of
our students have not seen much actual data, so an explanation is valid for
them if it fits the knowledge they currently have. It is not
appropriate, and not scientific, to tell them their explanation is wrong
without giving them the additional data of which they are unaware. As we bring in more and more data, and
more lines of reasoning, many of these other explanations will no longer fit
all of the data--and students will see why evolution is the currently-preferred
theory.

Harwood, W.S. A New Model for Inquiry. Journal of College
Science Teaching 33(7):29-33 (2004)